Bigfoot DNA
- Thread starter GT/CS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot dna ed smith melba ketchum
- Status
Paulides has one leg in the UFO culture and the other in Bigfoot. By not attributing the disappearances to either, he captures both markets. It's that simple. Plus he basically created TheMelba. Man's a genius.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
T'were better it be done voluntarily than under the LashL.
Yes, a kind of I suppose, carefully avoiding to appear in the foreground IMO.
Are you somehow implying that a thread about the DNA of a mythical creature is a serious thread?
I haven't seen a spit of difference between Bigfoot Follies and Bigfoot DNA.
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
Here are comments and questions for Ketchum, by Matt Bille, one of the less credulous cryptozoologists (on Melba's facebook):
"Dr. Ketchum, here's what, as a longtime and generally cautious researcher of cryptozoology, I've been puzzling over. I'm not a DNA expert, so I'm not going to critique anything there. But the evolutionary scenario puzzles me. We've got something close enough to H. Sapiens sapiens to be genetically compatible, but at the same time it doesn't look like Homo sapiens - it's hair-covered, robust, broad-shouldered, and the adults reported seem to cluster around 8 feet tall. It's not from the G. blacki line, because the DNA would never work, but nothing in the H. sapiens line matches the reports and footprint sizes. I think a lot of people would appreciate your thoughts on how this might've worked."
"Dr. Ketchum, here's what, as a longtime and generally cautious researcher of cryptozoology, I've been puzzling over. I'm not a DNA expert, so I'm not going to critique anything there. But the evolutionary scenario puzzles me. We've got something close enough to H. Sapiens sapiens to be genetically compatible, but at the same time it doesn't look like Homo sapiens - it's hair-covered, robust, broad-shouldered, and the adults reported seem to cluster around 8 feet tall. It's not from the G. blacki line, because the DNA would never work, but nothing in the H. sapiens line matches the reports and footprint sizes. I think a lot of people would appreciate your thoughts on how this might've worked."
OntarioSquatch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,783
Justin Smeja spilled the beans about Melba. Here's the crazy part:
-Dr. Ketchum wanted to defraud Wally Hersom by telling Wally she needs the 15,000 that she paid for the rest of Justin's sample while she planned on giving Justin 10,000. And she wanted Justin to get in on this scam.
-She would talk about how the Bigfoots psychically communicate with her through Justin's sample.
-She claimed to have a special way of making DNA appear different from what it really is.
-She told Justin to destroy the remaining sample when Justin refused to send it to her.
-Her family of 5 Bigfoots come and braid her horses hair.
-Dr. Ketchum wanted to defraud Wally Hersom by telling Wally she needs the 15,000 that she paid for the rest of Justin's sample while she planned on giving Justin 10,000. And she wanted Justin to get in on this scam.
-She would talk about how the Bigfoots psychically communicate with her through Justin's sample.
-She claimed to have a special way of making DNA appear different from what it really is.
-She told Justin to destroy the remaining sample when Justin refused to send it to her.
-Her family of 5 Bigfoots come and braid her horses hair.
OntarioSquatch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,783
You were once a big Ketchum (DVM) backer, how about now?
What I find most amazing about all this is the apparent total belief in bigfoot by people like Wally Hersom. I have assumed that he is a person of some intellect which allowed him to gain his wealth; perhaps that assuption is wrong. How can the utter lack of real evidence supporting bigfoot not hit him in the face as it has for most of us here? He has squandered a fortune supporting the BFRO and Melba Ketchum both of which I think are simply con artists and is no closer to his "truth" than when he started. What keeps benefactors of these crooks going? The Melba fiasco certainly seems like the proverbial last straw if ther ever was one.
calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
actually, while she removed the verbage "Angel DNA" and "not of this world" in reference to the DNA, from the paper before it published, she did not remove the "justification" for her statement.
The part of the paper talking about the novel DNA form using the electron microscope, that was her original basis for claiming angel DNA!
calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
This statement is not true, I pointed out that it was incorrect several months ago, and apparently you have either ignored that fact, or convieniently forgotten.
Go back and listen to that interview. You are taking a 10 second statement, a fragment of one sentence, and trying to twist it into support for your personal belief. At least listen to the one sentence, maybe the one before and after, and he is clearly not making this claim!
And you know that BTW
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
So calwaterbear, did you have the time to read the study and provide an analysis?
calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
the mystery of #26, & Robin, please fix this!
Alot of the stuff i have come across, and questions i have, have been raised here and in BFF. TheAgenes is doing a particulalry good job in summing it up and giving it historical background that really helps with the understanding.
Right now I am a bit handicapped because my copy of the paper seems to be missing the legends and labels for all of the figures. For instance Is the tissue sample with the ruler for size comparison - is that figure 13? or is there another figure 13 somewhere else? (BTW please note the ruler - it is in standard US - Inches! I got a huge chuckle out of that!)
If anyone can help me out there, i would appreciate it.
Note to Robin - "editors" of "scientific journals" actually label their figures, and require captions and titles! you might want to consider that on Volume 1 issue #2, of DeNovo which I am anxiously awaiting!
Anyway, right now i am simply trying to determine what sample #26 is. in suplementary data 4 it identifies it as being a toenail, but the discription in the paper of that sample talks about tissue and hair! i have no idea? And that unnumbered figure of that sample, looks a lot like the Smeja sample. it surely does not look like a toenail, and in my copy of the paper, i cannot find a photo of a toenail anywhere?
Also, justin Smeja is identified in the Acknowledgements, as having collected sample(s?), but his name does not appear on that table #4 that lists all the samples. Its almost like they tried to scrub reference of him from the paper, use another sample to cover over his, but apparently was unable to figure out how to use the search feature of MS Word to assure his name was completely removed!
Alot of the stuff i have come across, and questions i have, have been raised here and in BFF. TheAgenes is doing a particulalry good job in summing it up and giving it historical background that really helps with the understanding.
Right now I am a bit handicapped because my copy of the paper seems to be missing the legends and labels for all of the figures. For instance Is the tissue sample with the ruler for size comparison - is that figure 13? or is there another figure 13 somewhere else? (BTW please note the ruler - it is in standard US - Inches! I got a huge chuckle out of that!)
If anyone can help me out there, i would appreciate it.
Note to Robin - "editors" of "scientific journals" actually label their figures, and require captions and titles! you might want to consider that on Volume 1 issue #2, of DeNovo which I am anxiously awaiting!
Anyway, right now i am simply trying to determine what sample #26 is. in suplementary data 4 it identifies it as being a toenail, but the discription in the paper of that sample talks about tissue and hair! i have no idea? And that unnumbered figure of that sample, looks a lot like the Smeja sample. it surely does not look like a toenail, and in my copy of the paper, i cannot find a photo of a toenail anywhere?
Also, justin Smeja is identified in the Acknowledgements, as having collected sample(s?), but his name does not appear on that table #4 that lists all the samples. Its almost like they tried to scrub reference of him from the paper, use another sample to cover over his, but apparently was unable to figure out how to use the search feature of MS Word to assure his name was completely removed!
- Status